Jump to content
Fair Dinkum

The 1922 B.H. Robert's Meeting With General Authoriteis Re: Book of Mormon Problems and the Secret Meetings That Followed it

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon to scribes in 1829. The Book of Mormon refers to Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith Sr. by name and alludes to Oliver Cowdery. It prominently references an event in 1828 (the loss of the 116 pages), which also affects the book's structure. Those facts alone will stop "good scientists" from accepting the Book of Mormon as a product of the sixteenth century.

Does it really allude to Oliver Cowdery and the lost 116 pages? Or are certain real events and people explained in a way as to make them seem like they are events foretold in the Book of Mormon?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/24/2020 at 4:28 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Bear in mind that Joseph was not, and could not be the author of the BofM.  Someone in the EModE period produced that English text.  

If the Book of Mormon, or the result of Joseph's translation, has some syntax from the EModE period and syntax commensurate with Joseph's day, why must it have been produced at the earlier date?  One would assume if modern material was mixed with older material that clearly means it was composed at a later date rather than earlier.  It's much more reasonable for old stuff to be included in something rather than future stuff.  I think Nevo's point is clearly important to address if EModE is supposed to be taken seriously.  If God was involved why would anyone ever expect a result of broken bits of syntax from various eras?  It's perhaps the biggest reason why any believer should reject that EModE context was an impossibility for someone in Joseph's era to clunkily arrive at.  If JOseph attempted King James English and failed, then whose to say that failure didn't end up with some EMOdE syntax?  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/21/2020 at 1:11 AM, mfbukowski said:

Yes, it's huge, with vast and rather mysterious repercussions. It changes everything.

Could you elaborate on this?  What are these massive repercussions that change everything about the Book of Mormon?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If the Book of Mormon, or the result of Joseph's translation, has some syntax from the EModE period and syntax commensurate with Joseph's day, why must it have been produced at the earlier date?  One would assume if modern material was mixed with older material that clearly means it was composed at a later date rather than earlier.  It's much more reasonable for old stuff to be included in something rather than future stuff.  I think Nevo's point is clearly important to address if EModE is supposed to be taken seriously.  If God was involved why would anyone ever expect a result of broken bits of syntax from various eras?  It's perhaps the biggest reason why any believer should reject that EModE context was an impossibility for someone in Joseph's era to clunkily arrive at.  If JOseph attempted King James English and failed, then whose to say that failure didn't end up with some EMOdE syntax?  

You and Nevo might have a point, if and only if, the BofM were not a systematically EModE product.  You speak of "some syntax," and "broken bits of syntax from various eras."  You even suggest that there may have been a failed attempt by Joseph at styling the BofM in King James English.  The problem with all that is that the systematic use of EModE in the BofM so often departs from standard KJV English (systematically) and demonstrates a systematic kinship with learned writing from a much earlier era.  That's the kind of thing you can't fake.  EModE isn't hopscotch.

The statistical appearance of such EModE phenomena waxes and wanes over time, the language being a stream which continues to use some features, while dropping others over time -- and even adopting new ones. The earliest text itself makes this evident, while newer editions of the BofM have attempted to reduce that systematic EModE, without ever realizing what the problem was.  Why?  Because, although even Joseph Smith (unlearned as he was) recognized that something was wrong with the grammar and so made vast changes in the second edition, the presence of EModE is opaque to anyone except scholars.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You and Nevo might have a point, if and only if, the BofM were not a systematically EModE product.  You speak of "some syntax," and "broken bits of syntax from various eras."  You even suggest that there may have been a failed attempt by Joseph at styling the BofM in King James English.  The problem with all that is that the systematic use of EModE in the BofM so often departs from standard KJV English (systematically) and demonstrates a systematic kinship with learned writing from a much earlier era.  That's the kind of thing you can't fake.  EModE isn't hopscotch.

The statistical appearance of such EModE phenomena waxes and wanes over time, the language being a stream which continues to use some features, while dropping others over time -- and even adopting new ones. The earliest text itself makes this evident, while newer editions of the BofM have attempted to reduce that systematic EModE, without ever realizing what the problem was.  Why?  Because, although even Joseph Smith (unlearned as he was) recognized that something was wrong with the grammar and so made vast changes in the second edition, the presence of EModE is opaque to anyone except scholars.

Why is it systematically an EModE product if it's not entirely EModE?  I think that it shows Joseph Smith era English, and declares events that already happened as prophecy, demonstrates nicely it's not systematically an EModE product.  

As per Joseph making changes--every author wants to change after a first go at it.  That he changes it makes the whole thing more suspect, since he thought, apparently, the phrases he was reading off were put in the darkness of a hat by God.  Why would he change God's chosen words?  Or should we expect Joseph to see the words that appeared before him as words put together by some human from an EModE era?  

It's just weird stuff anymore.  If the Book was written in English long before Joseph Smith why did Joseph think otherwise?  What again is the purpose of the plates?  Who exactly is making the English lines appear to Joseph?  

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why is it systematically an EModE product if it's not entirely EModE?  I think that it shows Joseph Smith era English, and declares events that already happened as prophecy, demonstrates nicely it's not systematically an EModE product.  

Which events prophesied occur after the early modern era?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Why is it systematically an EModE product if it's not entirely EModE?  I think that it shows Joseph Smith era English, and declares events that already happened as prophecy, demonstrates nicely it's not systematically an EModE product.

Because language is a stream, and does not appear in discrete boxes, it can "seem" that the EModE features which carryover into modern times belie the claim that the BofM (or any other work) must have been written in another age.  However, that misses the point that actual changes occur over time, thus diminishing and even completely leaving behind many features.  These can be forensically measured and statistically graphed.  They cannot be faked.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

As per Joseph making changes--every author wants to change after a first go at it.  That he changes it makes the whole thing more suspect, since he thought, apparently, the phrases he was reading off were put in the darkness of a hat by God.  Why would he change God's chosen words?  Or should we expect Joseph to see the words that appeared before him as words put together by some human from an EModE era?

Joseph was very poorly educated, and so could not suss out the why of the "bad grammar" which so obviously pervaded the BofM.  He merely responded to it as best he could, making vast changes based upon what he knew to be the common speech of his day.  Those same sorts of changes were made in future editions by much better educated people, like James Talmage (1920 edition).  They all sought to bring the language up to date.  Why would God have anything to do with it?  After all, Joseph and Talmage were not silly infallibilists or inerrantists.  Moreover, neither of them knew anything about the existence of Early Modern English, which was the real reason for the apparently "bad grammar."

Book of Mormon Central, “Does the Book of Mormon Really Have ‘Bad’ Grammar? (Ether 12:25),” KnoWhy #490, Dec 4, 2018, https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/does-the-book-of-mormon-really-have-bad-grammar .

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's just weird stuff anymore.  If the Book was written in English long before Joseph Smith why did Joseph think otherwise?  What again is the purpose of the plates?  Who exactly is making the English lines appear to Joseph?  

It is weird, and in many ways inexplicable.  I can't think of any reason why the BofM text was rendered into EModE, unless it is supposed to be a divine practical joke.  Joseph was oblivious to the nature of the language, and could not have had time to give it much thought while he was dictating it to his scribes.  The scribes themselves, just doing their best to keep up, were not likely to have given it much thought -- until later.  The Plates may have been no more than a concrete realization of the claims made by Moroni and Joseph.  Since Joseph couldn't read the Egyptian on the Plates, his only recourse would have been to simply read the English text as it appeared before his eyes in that hat -- like reading a teleprompter or a text on a smartphone.  No more.  Joseph made it out to be no more nor less than a gift from God, which doesn't actually tell us much about the mechanics of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why is it systematically an EModE product if it's not entirely EModE? 

Why? No one knows precisely why the text is the way it is. Or maybe you are specifically asking how the text can be systematically something without being completely something. I think you could probably think of all sorts of analogies where something has systematic tendencies of a certain feature, without being entirely that feature. Its not some sort of categorical error or anything. 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

As per Joseph making changes--every author wants to change after a first go at it.  That he changes it makes the whole thing more suspect, since he thought, apparently, the phrases he was reading off were put in the darkness of a hat by God.  Why would he change God's chosen words?  Or should we expect Joseph to see the words that appeared before him as words put together by some human from an EModE era?  

The question could easily be flipped around. Why should we think Joseph held the assumption that he couldn't change God's words, especially when many of his comments about revelation shows that he saw God's word as being very adaptable and adjustable. Your question seems to reveal more about your own assumptions than it does about Joseph's.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's just weird stuff anymore.  If the Book was written in English long before Joseph Smith why did Joseph think otherwise? 

What makes you think he knew for sure where the text came from or when/how it was translated?

Also, as a side note, the EModE can't actually date the text's translation, it only dates some of its language. As soon as you invoke the possibility that it was translated by a divine person or persons, then trying to pin down the translation act itself to a specific time becomes impossible (seeing that God knows the future, God knows all languages and can grant linguistic capacities to his servants, and spirits who lived in the EModE period would still be around in the Spirit world long after they died in mortality).

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What again is the purpose of the plates? 

Several possible purposes:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-were-the-plates-present-during-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon

There is also the significance of the plates as an official and binding revelatory document:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/doubled-sealed-witnessed-documents-ancient-world-book-mormon

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Who exactly is making the English lines appear to Joseph?  

We don't know how the text got to be the way it is. Was someone in the EModE period responsible? Was God responsible? Was it translated by an individual or group of individuals in the Spirit world, who had some tie or connection to the EModE period? No one knows. I prefer something along the lines of the latter possibility, but remain open to other ideas. 

The other question is who are all the intended audiences? Just Joseph Smith's contemporaries? Modern readers from 1830 onward? What about English speakers and readers on the other side of the veil? I think all are possibilities, and the Spirit World offers a wider range of English readers that would need to be accounted for. 

What about the purpose of the EModE? Does it make the text inaccessible to a 19th century audience? Clearly not. Does it add rhetorical value to the text (giving it a feel of antiquity)? I think it does, especially in our day when we can better appreciate and identify the text's archaic features. Does it show that it's language isn't merely derivative of the Bible? Yes. But its intertextuality also shows it is heavily connected to the Bible. Which, in my opinion provides a nice blend and balance to things that accords well with the text's own view of its relationships with the Bible. In my mind, the infusion of EModE can serve multiple rhetorical functions at once. And, of course, it has possible apologetic value, but how much of an influence the text's EModE has in that context ultimately remains to be seen. Critics certainly aren't yet lining up to be baptized, now that the preliminary linguistic data is in. And even many Latter-day Saint scholars are skeptical and perplexed by the data. 

Do we have any solid answers for any of these types of speculations? No. That is the point that I raised before. But the fact that we don't yet have solid working theories for many aspects of the translation shouldn't lead us to reject the strong linguistic data telling us that the text most likely wasn't produced by Joseph.  

Edited by Ryan Dahle

Share this post


Link to post

The Book of Mormon was clearly not a systematically EModE product as the above rebuttals prove.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

The Book of Mormon was clearly not a systematically EModE product as the above rebuttals prove.

To which rebuttals are you referring? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

How to tighten up a thread title that’s too long:

B. H. Roberts’s problems with the Book of Mormon

Voila! I have taken a 20-word thread title and cut it down to eight words. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

The Book of Mormon was clearly not a systematically EModE product as the above rebuttals prove.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the Book of Mormon's constellation of non(pseudo)biblical archaic features mean that JS didn't author it.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, champatsch said:

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the Book of Mormon's constellation of non(pseudo)biblical archaic features mean that JS didn't author it.

Could you explain how the english of Joseph's day entered into the text when supposedly an EmodE speaker or speakers were the author(s)?  Shouldn't the entire thing be EmodE then?  What are the implications as to how the translation process went?  Was it tight or loose?  If thoughts loosely appeared on the stone and Joseph then put them into his language, doesn't that exclude EmodE?  If it was a word for word translation, then why the english of Joseph's day?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How to tighten up a thread title that’s too long:

B. H. Roberts’s problems with the Book of Mormon

Voila! I have taken a 20-word thread title and cut it down to eight words. 

But that takes out the chilling "secret meetings" bit. Everyone loves a coverup conspiracy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Royal Skousen, in an interview that was published in a BYU magazine (I have looked for link but can’t find it) a few months ago, said the BOM was a “creative and cultural translation” from 1500-1600.

This made a lot of sense to me … so much so, in fact, that I have accepted this explanation.

It makes sense to me that JS was reading off an existing translation. He wasn’t working the translation out in his mind. The speed of transmission, the fact that he wasn’t referencing the plates——this, in addition to presence of EModE, suggests he was reading off an existing translation.

The interesting question is, who did this “cultural and creative translation” from 1500-1600?

I have heard some say “God did it.” But God works through human agents. I am of the opinion a mortal man, living in England circa 1600, did it.

The one big constant in my testimony of the Restoration has always been the BOM——for 30 odd years now. The BOM only get more interesting——and more credible——as time goes on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Royal Skousen, in an interview that was published in a BYU magazine (I have looked for link but can’t find it) a few months ago, said the BOM was a “creative and cultural translation” from 1500-1600.

This made a lot of sense to me … so much so, in fact, that I have accepted this explanation.

It makes sense to me that JS was reading off an existing translation. He wasn’t working the translation out in his mind. The speed of transmission, the fact that he wasn’t referencing the plates——this, in addition to presence of EModE, suggests he was reading off an existing translation.

The interesting question is, who did this “cultural and creative translation” from 1500-1600?

I have heard some say “God did it.” But God works through human agents. I am of the opinion a mortal man, living in England circa 1600, did it.

The one big constant in my testimony of the Restoration has always been the BOM——for 30 odd years now. The BOM only get more interesting——and more credible——as time goes on.

How do you explain how english from Joseph Smith's day appears in the book of mormon text if he was reading off an existing translation from 1500-1600?

Share this post


Link to post

What are you referring to? Are you referring to simple phrases declared to be 19c phrases by secular academics?

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, champatsch said:

What are you referring to? Are you referring to simple phrases declared to be 19c phrases by secular academics?

Are there phrases in the first edition of the BoM that do not demonstrate EModE or contradict how it should be worded via EModE?  

If we are want to say Joseph didn't translate, then that really changes the original story.  If Joseph read off words that were previously written by someone else, either God or his emissary, then that shows the unimportance of the plates, if the notion that he didn't consult the plates during the work doesn't already show that.  If Joseph used Adam Clarke to create what we call the JST, then perhaps he used another unknown text to create the BoM.  Far more reasonable than God did it.  If anything from his era shows up in the text, then its simply explanation under such an hypothesis.  It can't be possible if it's supposedly a dictation from a 14-15 century text.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

But that takes out the chilling "secret meetings" bit. Everyone loves a coverup conspiracy.

How about “Cloak and Dagger: B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon”?

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, JarMan said:

Which events prophesied occur after the early modern era?

I believe Nevo raised the issue earlier.  Joseph being named, the story of the lost pages.  Those events all happened before they left Joseph's lips, but apparently were written in English hundreds of years before he lived.  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about “Cloak and Dagger: B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon”?

The Secret Meetings of B.H. Roberts: What the Mormons DO NOT want you to know

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Are there phrases in the first edition of the BoM that do not demonstrate EModE or contradict how it should be worded via EModE?  

If we are want to say Joseph didn't translate, then that really changes the original story.  If Joseph read off words that were previously written by someone else, either God or his emissary, then that shows the unimportance of the plates, if the notion that he didn't consult the plates during the work doesn't already show that.  If Joseph used Adam Clarke to create what we call the JST, then perhaps he used another unknown text to create the BoM.  Far more reasonable than God did it.  If anything from his era shows up in the text, then its simply explanation under such an hypothesis.  It can't be possible if it's supposedly a dictation from a 14-15 century text.

Language is relatively flexible and does not appear overnight. Instances of constructs labelled as 19th-century are not sufficient to invalidate systematic EModE presence, if such has in fact been demonstrated. 

Regarding the rest of the post, I again fail to see this "unimportance of the plates" which you attest. The plates still served an essential role as an artifact and subject of sacred trial. As Lucy Mack Smith would attest, the Smith family's period of custody of the plates was a refining experience for the first family of the Restoration. They also served as a linchpin of the experience of the Witnesses, as did the other artifacts of the ark of the New Covenant. 

As for "Joseph used Adam Clarke to create what we call the JST"...oh for the love of all things holy. Joseph's references to the Clarke commentary were distinct but selective. He was not dependent on it in the sense that dependent evokes general compliance. Mark Ashurst-McGee will be presenting on this at the FairMormon conference in a few days and I'm looking forward to his commentary. Both him and Wayment have had enough of the idea that the JST was generally dependent on the Clarke commentary. 

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Secret Meetings of B.H. Roberts: What the Mormons DO NOT want you to know

Still too long. We’re going for brevity here. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Still too long. We’re going for brevity here. 

Fine.

B.H. Roberts: The One that Pushed Back!

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/30/2020 at 2:58 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Because language is a stream, and does not appear in discrete boxes, it can "seem" that the EModE features which carryover into modern times belie the claim that the BofM (or any other work) must have been written in another age.  However, that misses the point that actual changes occur over time, thus diminishing and even completely leaving behind many features.  These can be forensically measured and statistically graphed.  They cannot be faked.

Joseph was very poorly educated, and so could not suss out the why of the "bad grammar" which so obviously pervaded the BofM.  He merely responded to it as best he could, making vast changes based upon what he knew to be the common speech of his day.  Those same sorts of changes were made in future editions by much better educated people, like James Talmage (1920 edition).  They all sought to bring the language up to date.  Why would God have anything to do with it?  After all, Joseph and Talmage were not silly infallibilists or inerrantists.  Moreover, neither of them knew anything about the existence of Early Modern English, which was the real reason for the apparently "bad grammar."

Book of Mormon Central, “Does the Book of Mormon Really Have ‘Bad’ Grammar? (Ether 12:25),” KnoWhy #490, Dec 4, 2018, https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/does-the-book-of-mormon-really-have-bad-grammar .

It is weird, and in many ways inexplicable.  I can't think of any reason why the BofM text was rendered into EModE, unless it is supposed to be a divine practical joke.  Joseph was oblivious to the nature of the language, and could not have had time to give it much thought while he was dictating it to his scribes.  The scribes themselves, just doing their best to keep up, were not likely to have given it much thought -- until later.  The Plates may have been no more than a concrete realization of the claims made by Moroni and Joseph.  Since Joseph couldn't read the Egyptian on the Plates, his only recourse would have been to simply read the English text as it appeared before his eyes in that hat -- like reading a teleprompter or a text on a smartphone.  No more.  Joseph made it out to be no more nor less than a gift from God, which doesn't actually tell us much about the mechanics of it.

Thanks for the explanation, Robert.  Not sure I have any thing to add.  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By blueglass
      Really impressed with Kate Holbrook's interview with Terryl Givens.  She's thoughtful, candid, and inspiring as she speaks about her persistence to get a PhD and work full time for the church as a manger of church history.  She's working on a project with Lisa Tate on the history of the young women's organization.  
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2G7k1ggz7k&feature=em-uploademail
      One thing I caught that I hadn't heard before was when Terryl asks her about whether she felt a sense of loss and a sense of jubilation when studying the history of the RS.  Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands.  Kate responds that she understands the hyperfocus on this time period, but she feels there is a lost opportunity in recognizing the accomplishments of the women of the 20th century - she then backtracks a bit and says:
      "I don't want to say that their isn't a difference, between - a time when a woman was able to say I have this terrific idea she's say the General RS president and she goes and talks to the president of the church about it.  That is certainly different than now, when she goes and talks to someone in the presiding bishopric, and it has to go through several levels to even get to the president.  There is a loss, and there is a difference."
      I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?  Why in 3 heavens does the general RS president still have such an auxiliary level of access to the presiding apostolic quorum, access to financial influence through Pres Bishopric perhaps, but no real budget to work with?  No seat on the correlation committee?  
      Kate has a great story about how Ardeth Greene Kapp (General YW president 84-92') while receiving a downpour of revelation would use innovative, clever ways and technology to push the ideas upward through the hierarchy.  
    • By FearlessFixxer
      http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/11/26/commentary-the-gaslighting-within-mormonism-must-stop/
    • By Bernard Gui
      On a thread that was closed for not supplying a topic for discussion.....
      I listened to the podcast. It takes apart Elder Packer's CES address where he defined what is a faithful/faith-promoting history of the Church.
      He calls his blog "Radio Free Mormon broadcasting behind enemy lines." Who is his enemy? It appears his enemy is the Church and its leaders.
      An hour-long monologue making a case that Boyd Packer was immoral, unethical, and a liar who worshipped a false God based on his CES talk about church history and Leonard Arrington. Also accuses the General Authorities of publishing books for the purpose of making a profit. He doesn't like Elder Packer who is portrayed as an evil man. Also dredges up the Gordon Hinckley's "I don't know" interview to question his integrity. Church leaders are part of a deceptive conspiracy to cover up the truth of church history.
      Some here knew Leonard Arrington. I have enjoyed his writings. Is it fair to say he was demoted from his position as Church Historian to a professor at BYU? Is it fair to claim Elder Packer was an unethical liar?
    • By canard78
      Elder Maynes CES devotional went into extensive detail on the first vision accounts last night. 
      Starts at 35:20:
      https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/the-truth-restored?lang=eng&_r=1
      I'm delighted that the essays and these topics are gradually becoming more mainstream. My mum (a primary president) even plans to use parts of the vision essay in sharing time this month (it's the "truth restored" section of the manual). I'll share this talk and article with her too as it's got some useful suggestions.
      A couple of questions: 
      - He said Joseph "wrote or dictated" the four accounts. Is that the best description of how the official account was written? I'll have to look up the Bushman reference I'm thinking of as I seem to remember him saying somewhere that the official version was a bit more of a co-creation or collaboration with Rigdon. I might be misremembering that so will try to check it.
      - He also says that it's the best documented vision in history. I wondered what the other contenders would be. 
      Any other thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...